Originally posted by exigentsky"When the differences in rating are so small at the top level, they don't mean that much and certainly shouldn't be the defining factor in who your favorite player might be"
Actually, it is: "Kramnik and Anand are probably still a bit stronger overall as they have passed more important tests."
The specific case of Kramnik and Anand don't cover this statement. But its really beside the point as you clarified yourself anyway.
Originally posted by GuychYes...I would like know the best place to follow the games. Is there any channel in the USA that would carry any of it? I highly doubt it.
Another question about it: Is there a place online one can watch the games and read news about them (if one doesn't have time to watch all of the games)?
If there is, could you, plz, post a link.
In my previous post I certainly didn't mean to imply that the ratings actually prove that one player is stronger than the other, but both Anand and Kramnik have been around for a long time (as well as Topalov and Ivanchuk, buncha old-timers!) and have both proven themselves capable players. I was just trying to be as objective as possible in choosing a favorite(this is what ratings are meant for I suppose).
Nevertheless, it is true that Kramnik has proven to be one of the best match players ever; it seems he thrives for match play, shutting down even Kasparov in 2000.
I route for Anand simply because I like his style more though.
The poll on the Daily Dirt Chess blog has so far put Kramnik as the favorite though(by a close margin nevertheless).
If it comes down to the rapid tie-breaks though, I think Anand will have a definite advantage being the best rapid chess player in the world.